Antonio Piñero on Jesus was Caesar (22 October 2014)

by DIVVS·IVLIVS

Piñero and Carotta at the Escorial conference

Fulvius de Boer may be known to our readers: he wrote this awesome piece against the detractor Anton van Hooff a couple of years ago (English translation). Now Fulvius just recently came across this blog post by a semi-supporter, Antonio Piñero, a Complutense professor of Greek philology who specializes in early Christian literature (archive; English translation by Google). Fulvius told us that he tried to post a comment there, but his reply hasn’t been published yet. Maybe because it was written in English? Are they translating it? (On that note: is there a benevolent reader who wants to translate it into Spanish for us?) At any rate, we already like Fulvius’ comments in English, so while we wait, we will reproduce his original reply here:

Piñero takes the easy way out, when he maintains that Asinius Pollio’s Historiae are lost, and therefore cannot be compared with the Gospels—which undermines the hypothesis and doesn’t allow it to be verified.

It has been proven that the Historiae of Asinius Pollio were used by Plutarch and Appian; this has been known about Appian since 1874; cf. i.a. Paul J.H. Bailleu (1874), Quomodo Appianus in bellorum civilium libris II-V usus sit Asinii Pollionis historiis, Göttingen; Fröhlich (1892), De rebus inde a Caesare occiso usque ad senatum Liberalibus habitum gestis, Berlin, p. 2.

This fact has never been questioned, but consistently reconfirmed and expanded to include Plutarch; cf. i.a. E. Gabba (1956), Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili, Florence, as well as his introduction to Appiani bellorum civilium liber primus (Florence 1958).

Plutarch and Appian’s works have been preserved, so there is the possibility of comparison.

Piñero understands German, and all of the above was also explicitly mentioned in the Spanish lecture in Escorial which he refers to, and which he himself printed; cf. p. 20 in the PDF here (p. 20). [English version]

It is surprising that Piñero overlooked so many and so obvious sources, even in his mother tongue.

All the references also disprove Piñero’s other assertion that Carotta only later and over the course of time changed his assumptions, when he realized that Asinius Pollio was the author of the “diegetic transposition” although he had originally credited Flavius Josephus.

This is incorrect, because Asinius Pollio was often mentioned as the source of Mark in the very first publication of War Jesus Caesar? (1999); see the long list of references above.

Apparently Piñero confused the discovery of the source of Mark’s gospel with the hypothesis concerning the possible role of Flavius Josephus in the diegetic transposition. Incidentally, Carotta recognized that Flavius Josephus himself was diegetically transposed, not as Mark, but as Paul; cf. i.a. War Jesus Caesar? (1999), p. 358 with n. 733.

Obviously Piñero doesn’t want to accept the fact that Asinius Pollio’s Historiae have essentially been preserved, even if indirectly, Plutarch and Appian having copied pages and pages of his work.

Since it is hard to believe that he neither read Carotta’s book nor his lecture in Escorial, one has to ask if he purposely ignores them. It is then easier for him to dismiss the new insights and rely on outdated beliefs.

FULVIUS DE BOER

So let’s recapitulate: Piñero knew Carotta’s theory; he invited him to the Escorial conference, where Carotta gave a lecture, while Piñero was sitting right next to him; the two and other people debated the theory afterwards, even informally, which you can see in the documentary feature film The Gospel of Caesar; and yet, Piñero nevertheless got it wrong even back then, which you can read on page 346 in the book ¿Existió Jesús realmente? (Madrid 2008), which he edited, and which also contains the article by Carotta (emphasis added):

For the 2014 blog post he seems to have simply copy-pasted this false argument. However, Piñero knew then and knows today that Asinius Pollio has been transmitted via Appian and Plutarch; cf. e.g. Carotta’s article in Piñero’s book (p. 122 sq.; emphasis added):

This means that Carotta’s theory is verifiable from beginning to end. So why is Piñero repeating the same mistake? Is he refusing to accept that Carotta’s theory is standing on sound scientific grounds? Or may he even be trying to smear Carotta? Your guesses are as good as ours. However, what we can comment on, without guessing, is for example this little remark by Piñero:

Occam’s Razor, my-my. But this is patently false, because it presupposes the existence of the Jewish itinerant preacher “Jesus” (“Yeshua”), and it appears that Piñero has no knowledge of current research into the historicity argument. Required reading: Carrier RC. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield. While we do not support the case for a mythological/celestial historicized Christ, Carrier’s book must nonetheless be viewed as a watershed event, an effective and possibly permanent refutation of the historicity argument. It means that almost any major theory may easily be simpler, more economical and more probable than Piñero’s traditional belief in a “Jewish historical Jesus”, a figure that is hypothetical, unknown, undocumented, unverifiable, in one word: ahistorical.

One Comment to “Antonio Piñero on Jesus was Caesar (22 October 2014)”

Good refutation of Pinero’s nonsense about an historical Jesus who is substantially recognizable in the Gospels.

Who was the “historical Jesus”, other that Julius Caesar? The biological brother of a certain James? A careful analysis of the canonical and extracsnonical early Xtian writings put paid to that. The sage who brought together the various teachings we call collectively as source Q? That could have been anybody, and even now the Q hypothesis is under increasing attack. A zealot? Well if there was an actual Palm Sunday triumphal procession in J’lem he would have been crucified or impaled right then and there. Ditto for the so-called “cleansing of the Temple”. For none of the gospels make any sense as history… unless diegetically transposed into well-written allegorical fiction.

About / Notes / Privacy

(1) This blog is maintained by a group of scientists and journalists researching Francesco Carotta's theory that the historical Jesus was Julius Caesar. The works of research and commentary published here may be preliminary and subject to later revision.

(2) We consider faith a natural expression of mankind, which we do not intend to criticize. Our works center on the history of religion, and their sole purpose is to reach a more profound knowledge of man's religious roots.
(3) Please do not use bold face in the comments. Bold face is reserved for the editors' replies in that section.
(4) Readers are advised to comment only on Francesco Carotta's theory and our articles on this blog: we only allow other theories, if they directly pertain to an article published here. Readers' comments that misuse or abuse the theories presented on this blog (or misuse the comment section itself) for anti-religious hate speech, defamation or an Anti-Christian agenda, will be redacted, deleted or not published at all. We reserve the right to ban commentators permanently without further explanation.
(5) In order to display polytonic and MS Greek correctly, this blog sometimes uses the freeware open license fonts New Athena, Gentium and GFS Ignacio. These fonts are not embedded, so you need to install them on your computer after downloading them here (New Athena), here (Gentium) and here (GFS Ignacio). On most systems these fonts will then be available after you restart your browser.
(6) The coin in the header bears the inscription DIVOS instead of the usual DIVVS, because it is the archaic Latin spelling (cf. Valverde 2003, 37).
(7) Privacy policy for wordpress.com blogs by Automattic.